Tennis Forum banner

81 - 100 of 3747 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,458 Posts


In different circumstances there would be so much else to discuss when Rhian Brewster pulls up his seat for the first major interview of what promises to be a thrilling career. The young man – or boy, really – sitting here is not short of highlights when he looks back on 2017. He is a World Cup winner with England’s Under-17s, as well as being the owner of the golden boot trophy from the same tournament, and there will be plenty of other opportunities, almost certainly, in the future to talk about the star qualities that have established him as one of the rising young hopes of English football.

Yet we are here, on his request, because he wants to talk about his other experiences over the past year and go through a story, at the age of 17, that can make you despair. He is speaking with a courage that goes beyond his years and he hopes, in the process, that what he says can go all the way to the top of the sport – if, that is, the relevant people are willing to listen. And, frankly, he could probably be forgiven for having a few doubts.

Uefa, in particular, needs to pay attention because this is a cry for help and it all feels so desperately wrong that over the course of an hour a teenage footballer, still to make his professional debut, can recall seven occasions when he says he has been racially abused or witnessed the same happening to a team-mate. Five of the alleged incidents are from the past seven months. Two have been while playing for England and one occurred in the World Cup final when, amid all the golden memories of beating Spain’s Under-17s, Brewster says he can vividly remember one of his team-mates being called a “monkey” by an opposition player.

To speak out takes courage because it cannot be easy for any player, especially one of his age, to go through the more excruciating details. Yet it is also clear that Brewster has been thinking about going public for some time and, importantly, that he has a strong support network in place. Mike Gordon, Liverpool’s co-owner, has been personally involved, ringing Brewster several times to let him know he has the backing of the people at the top of the club. Jürgen Klopp, the manager, is aware of this interview and full of admiration for what the teenager is trying to do. Steven Gerrard, one of Brewster’s mentors at the club’s academy, is the same. Troy Townsend, Kick it Out’s education manager, is in regular contact and Alex Inglethorpe, Liverpool’s academy director, is here to offer his support, sitting in the next seat as Brewster explains why he feels compelled to speak out. Liverpool, very understandably, are proud of what their player is doing.

“I said to them that I wanted to do it,” Brewster explains. “They said I should speak to my parents before doing anything and see what my mum and dad think. My mum and dad are unnerved because this is not the first time. They’re angry and they don’t want it to keep happening. And they’re angry because nothing has been done about it.”


“I got fouled,” Brewster says. “I was on the floor and I had the ball in my hands. One of their players started saying stuff in Russian to the ref. I said: ‘It’s a foul, man, what you playing at?’ I was still sitting down at this stage. Then their player leaned over me, right down to my face and said: ‘Suck my dick, you ******, you negro.’

I didn’t even want to put in a complaint [after the Spartak game]. I was walking down the tunnel swearing: ‘Fuck the system, it’s not going to do anything.' Obviously you have to [make a complaint]. But if something is ever done about it, that’s another story
“I jumped to my feet and the ref came running over because obviously he realised something had been said. He [the referee] said to me he couldn’t do anything because he hadn’t heard it and ‘the only thing I can do is report it’. I said: ‘Come on, then – let’s go and report it.’ He started doing something else and I said: ‘No, now.’ We went over to the fourth official and told him. I told Steven [Gerrard] what had happened and we made a complaint there.”

It is jarring, to say the least, to hear the words that were allegedly used. But this, Brewster says, is only the latest in a long line of incidents where he has been targeted this year, starting with England’s encounter against Ukraine during the European Under-17 Championship in Croatia in May.

England won that game 4-0, with Brewster scoring the second goal. Yet the striker also angered one of the Ukraine players after chasing a ball into the penalty area and colliding with the goalkeeper. “I didn’t mean to hurt the goalkeeper and I said sorry – just left it there. But then there was an incident [with the same outfield player] later in the match. It was a bad challenge and I pushed him. We got into an argument and he called me a ******.”

The Football Association lodged an official complaint but Uefa, with no video footage, concluded there was not enough evidence for disciplinary action. Nobody, however, has ever informed Brewster of that decision. To the teenager, it feels like the case “disappeared”.

continues here:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/dec/28/liverpool-rhian-brewster-racial-abuse-england-uefa
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,934 Posts
It is not that one sees social justice as a bad thing.

But the three-word term “social justice warrior" is now defined as a perjorative for someone who is more interested in self-validation than the actual cause.

And I think it exactly fits someone who claims that "Jingle Bells" is a racist song.
And those that buy into that interpretation without an iota of evidence.

Or someone who wants to change the name of a street because the word "swastika" bothers them.

I think I first became aware of the phenomenon of SJWs when PETA started a petition to rename the town of FISHKILL, NY, because it was suggestive of violence towards fish. Such was the drive for self-validation that it seems that PETA did not even bother to check that ‘kill’ is a Dutch name for stream. Or care.

The mayor of FISHKILL said that the town would change its name when the Catskill Mountains were renamed the Catsave Mountains.

Then the SJWs went totally off the rails when an accountant in NY was fired because he wrote that circumstances dictated that the company budget for the upcoming year would, of necessity, be niggardly. It did not matter that the word was exactly the word needed. People who did not know the meaning of the word were offended.

Social media killed common sense. By that I mean, SJWs don’t actually do anything, they just tweet any old thing that comes into their head that gives them a sense of validation.
It is not defined that way. It is often used that way. Mostly by those who have no real interest in social justice.

It's possible that the writer of Jingle Bells did have a racist angle in mind but since the lyrics themselves don't suggest that, it is IMO irrelevant at this point.

Though I've posted on a thread on "taking back the swastika" it's foolish to not see why some people would be bothered by the term.

The Fishkill thing is hilarious. Even if it did mean killing fish.

Again the point is that in using a pro social justice term as an insult is not indicative of a commitment to social justice. I do speak of a "culture of outrage" which feeds, and is fed by, social media. Hmmm ... maybe I could go with Social Media Warrior.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39,673 Posts
It is not that one sees social justice as a bad thing.

But the three-word term “social justice warrior" is now defined as a perjorative for someone who is more interested in self-validation than the actual cause.

-snip-
So anyone who speaks on social justice is now no more than a glory-seeker because of how some choose to define it?

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,178 Posts
So anyone who speaks on social justice is now no more than a glory-seeker because of how some choose to define it?

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
Ummmmm, no!

Nobody ever said that. It is actually more of the opposite to what you think it means: in that a glory-seeker is nowadays referred to as a SJW.

You do not appear to understand that speaking on social justice does not define one as a SJW. Referring to someone as a SJW infers that the person is wasting everyone’s time with petty causes, mostly for self-validation.

Maybe I can help you understand by the example of someone being called a "real do-gooder". That does not have the literal meaning that the person does really good things. In spite of the literal meaning of doing good, the term is applied to someone who only thinks he is doing good, but is actually more of a pain in the ass and is mostly interested in moulding other people to his misguided ideas.

And if I had referred to MLK as a SJW you might well have been the first one to complain.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,178 Posts
Again the point is that in using a pro social justice term as an insult is not indicative of a commitment to social justice. .
That is exactly my point - if I understand what you are saying in that somewhat muddled sentence.

Calling someone a SJW does not mean you think they have a commitment to social justice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,934 Posts
That is exactly my point - if I understand what you are saying in that somewhat muddled sentence.

Calling someone a SJW does not mean you think they have a commitment to social justice.
:lol: No you didn't understand. Muddled? Hmmm . maybe. Let's have a look.

using a pro social justice term as an insult is not indicative of a commitment to social justice. .

My apologies but I think that's clear. Simple even. But since you misunderstood I'll re-state.

It is almost certain that those who use pro social-justice terms as insults are people who have little or no commitment to social justice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,178 Posts
:lol: No you didn't understand. Muddled? Hmmm . maybe. Let's have a look.

using a pro social justice term as an insult is not indicative of a commitment to social justice. .

My apologies but I think that's clear. Simple even. But since you misunderstood I'll re-state.

It is almost certain that those who use pro social-justice terms as insults are people who have little or no commitment to social justice.
Ah, well, you had to delete part of your sentence in order to make it grammatically correct. Actually, all you had to take out was the little word "in". When you put that word in your original sentence, you then needed a subject in front of "is", farther along in the sentence.

But then you fouled out again by completely reversing the meaning and insisting it was the same argument.

In the first sentence you say that using a social justice term is not indicative of a commitment to social justice. (This says nothing at all about whether the person is, or is not, committed to social justice).

Now you try to explain that to me as meaning that using a social justice term is almost certain to indicate a person who little or no commitment to social justice.

Positives and negatives are getting all mixed up here.

And we have wandered off the point that the dictionary now defines SJW as a perjorative. It no longer has a literal meaning. Just as my example of "do-gooder" does not have a literal meaning.

But Happy New Year.

Time to turn the page (not literally).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,934 Posts
Ah, well, you had to delete part of your sentence in order to make it grammatically correct. Actually, all you had to take out was the little word "in". When you put that word in your original sentence, you then needed a subject in front of "is", farther along in the sentence.

But then you fouled out again by completely reversing the meaning and insisting it was the same argument.
:happy: The "in" is an obvious typo. I was first going to phrase it differently, changed my mind mid-sentence and neglected to erase.

I mean . . . . :lol: and SMH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,934 Posts
So I was right. Your sentence did not make sense. I think it even more disturbing that you knew it and just left it that way.
:facepalm: No you were not right. There's a difference between "did not make sense" and a glaring typo that even most HS freshman would easily notice. To me all your doing is again showing a lack of clear cognizance. I'm out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,934 Posts

Carnival of Blacks and Whites


The Carnaval de Negros y Blancos, or The Carnival of Blacks and Whites, is one of Colombia’s most famous festivals, and one of the country’s biggest. Thousands of tourists from all around the world come to celebrate the festival, as well as a huge amount of Colombians.

The Carnaval de Negros y Blancos’ origins date way back to the times of the Agrarian Indian cultures of the región, who held celebrations top pay tribute to their Moon Goddess. This was thought to help protect their crops and, thus, their livelihood.It is celebrated every year between the dates of January 4th and January 6th in the city of Pasto, located in the southwestern region of Colombia in the Andes mountain range. Pasto has, historically, been a meeting point for people of various colonies, races and backgrounds, making it a melting pot of culture.

As time progressed other aspects were added to the Carnaval; namely the influence of Spanish carnivals and the introduction of elements of African feasts. With this variety of influence, the festival essentially changed, becoming what we know today as the Carnaval de Negros y Blancos.

Today, as with many Colombian festivals, music plays a huge part in the festivities, as does food, artisans and dancing. Huge floats are constructed and paraded through the streets to celebrate the rich history of the area, and the coming together of different cultures.

On 20th September 2009 the Carnaval de Negros y Blancos was announced as one of the Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity by UNESCO

The days of the festival follow separate themes, and are as follows:


  • Day 1, January 4th: The Castañeda Family Parade
    This is a celebration of an old legend. In 1928 a Pasto family invited the Castadeña Family to the feasts, a very special family of the time. These days people dress up in early 20th century attire to evoke the period.

    Day 2, January 5th: El Día de los Negros
    People mark themselves with black face paint on their clothes, faces and arms. Orchestras play in the street, and the idea is that all social classes and races are celebrated.

    Day 3, January 6th: El Día de los Blancos

    On this day people throw white talcum poder at each other. There is a float parade of huge figures, and the day is intended as a celebration of the local culture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52,304 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,458 Posts
Feeling a German accent from the lady, especially the yaa yaa part. She gives more of a mentally unstable tinfoil hat vibe though, rather than a hateful racist. Certainly in a need of some care.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39,673 Posts

Kansas state Republican lawmaker resurrected a Jim Crow myth that African Americans are genetically predisposed to handle marijuana more poorly than other races during a speech over the weekend.

As the Garden City Telegram reported, State Rep. Steve Alford (R) told an all-white crowd that marijuana was criminalized during the prohibition era in the 1930’s primarily because of black marijuana use when asked a question by a member of the local Democratic party about potential economic boons from cannabis legalization.

“What you really need to do is go back in the ’30s, when they outlawed all types of drugs in Kansas (and) across the United States,” Alford said. “What was the reason why they did that? One of the reasons why, I hate to say it, was that the African Americans, they were basically users and they basically responded the worst off to those drugs just because of their character makeup, their genetics and that.”

As the Telegram noted in their report, Alford’s comments referenced a belief promoted by marijuana prohibitionist Harry Anslinger, the founding commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

“Under Anslinger’s leadership, the FBN came to be considered responsible for the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937,” the report noted, “regulating cannabis and further taxing it to the ultimate detriment of the hemp industry that was booming at the time.”

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men,” Anslinger said once when explaining why marijuana supposedly caused crime and violence. The commissioner also fought for the prohibition of cannabis due to “its effect on the degenerate races,” the Telegram noted.

Kansas Republican lawmaker says black people can’t handle marijuana because of ‘their genetics’

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,934 Posts
Kansas state Republican lawmaker resurrected a Jim Crow myth that African Americans are genetically predisposed to handle marijuana more poorly than other races during a speech over the weekend.
That's a prime example of the BS that occurs when people think "race" is a scientific rather than social categorization.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39,673 Posts
That's a prime example of the BS that occurs when people think "race" is a scientific rather than social categorization.
Yeah, a myth as it was stated as.

What do you think of "race" when it comes to sickle cell anemia? I found out I had the sickle cell trait after joining the USAF. Meaning that had my son's mother also had the trait our son might've had it full-blown.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
 
81 - 100 of 3747 Posts
Top